Vasudevan v Icab Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong JC
• Judgment Date: 16 February 1987
• Neutral Citation: [1987] SGHC 2
• Citation: [1987] SGHC 2
• Date: 16 February 1987
• Year: 1987
• Plaintiff Counsel: Clive Heng (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 953 of 1986
• Defendant Counsel: Toh Peng Ann (Tan Lee & Choo)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

On 8 November 1982, the plaintiff herein commenced an action in Suit No 4851/82 against the defendants claiming damages at common law for injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of an accident on or about 2 October 1981 in the course of his employment as a casual labourer. The said action was set down for trial on 20 October 1983. Sometime in November 1985, the solicitors for the defendants informed the solicitors for the plaintiff that the defendants had been wound up. A search by the solicitors for the plaintiff in the Registry of Companies showed that the defendants were dissolved as a company on or about 22 April 1985. In the meantime, the action had been fixed for hearing on 15 October 1986.

On 5 August 1986, the plaintiff filed this originating summons for an order that he be granted leave to continue proceedings against the company. On 20 August 1986, the liquidator filed an affidavit in which he stated that he was appointed a liquidator of the defendants pursuant to a special resolution to wind up the company voluntarily, passed by members at an extraordinary general meeting held on 16 January 1985; that on 22 January 1985 a notice of the special resolution to wind up the company was published in the Singapore Monitor; that on 21 February 1985 he caused to be published in the Singapore Monitor an advertisement in the usual form requesting all creditors to send their names and addresses with particulars of their debts or claims to him at his address; that on 4 March 1985, he caused to be published in the Singapore Monitor a notice of a final general meeting of the members of the company for the purpose of receiving an account from him showing the manner in which the winding up has been conducted and to hear any explanations that may be given at the final general meeting to be held on 25 March; that on 25 March 1986 he lodged with the Registry of Companies and the Official Receiver a copy of the return by the liquidator relating to final meeting and its statement of accounts in accordance with s 308 of the Companies Act. The liquidator then stated that to the best of his knowledge and information, he had not from the date of appointment to the date of his resignation as liquidator on 28 July 1986 received any claim relating to the plaintiff`s action in Suit No 4851/ 82.

On 1 September 1986, the plaintiff made an application by way of summons in chambers in this originating summons for an order under s 308(6) of the Companies Act (Reprint) that the dissolution of the defendants be deferred until after determination of the action in Suit No 4851/82. Both applications came before me for hearing on 29 September 1986. In respect of the application to defer the winding up, counsel for the plaintiff made a long submission on the law and argued that this was a proper case for such an order to be made on the basis of the decisions in Re Crookhaven Mining Co (1866) LR 3 Eq 69 and Whiteley...